You have instructed Single Joint Experts before. The Part 25 machinery is familiar, and a crypto case runs through the same machinery. What differs is the material the expert works from, and that difference has consequences for the letter of instruction that are easy to miss until the report lands. This article is about what to ask for, and how to tell whether you got it.
TLDR | Key Takeaways
- A letter of instruction that asks about exchange accounts produces a report about exchange accounts. Self-custodied holdings generate no documents, so a document-led approach cannot reach them and will not say so.
- Discovery and valuation are separate asks. Where wallet addresses are provided, on-chain holdings largely surface; where valuation methodology is not specified, assets get identified with no defensible figure attached.
- The letter is disclosable under FPR 25.14(3), so the scope you set is visible to the other side. Draft it knowing that.
- Ten days to put written questions is not long to spot an omission in an unfamiliar asset class. Know in advance what a complete report looks like.
Why Crypto Behaves Differently From a Business or a Pension
With a company valuation or a pension report, the expert works from documents that someone is obliged to produce. Accounts exist. Statements exist. The instruction can be relatively open because the source material is bounded and discoverable through disclosure.
Cryptocurrency splits into two categories that behave nothing like each other.
Holdings on a regulated exchange resemble a bank account. There is an institution, an account, a statement. Conventional financial analysis reaches them.
Self-custodied holdings have no institution behind them. No statement is issued because no one issues it. A hardware wallet in a drawer generates no record on any system a party can be ordered to disclose. The only authoritative account of what was held, and where it moved, exists on the blockchain, and reaching it requires a starting address.
That distinction is what makes the letter of instruction do more work in a crypto case than it does elsewhere.
The Report That Looks Complete
Consider an instruction to identify and value the respondent’s cryptocurrency holdings, with disclosure comprising statements from two exchanges.
An expert working from documents will do exactly that competently. The report will be properly formatted, will carry the statement of compliance required by FPR 25.14(2), and will present a figure. Nothing in it will appear deficient.
It will also be silent on anything self-custodied, because nothing in the material given to the expert points there. PD25B, paragraph 4.1(e), requires an expert to confine their opinion to matters material to the issues and to questions within their expertise. An expert who was handed exchange statements and asked for a valuation has answered the question put. The omission is in the instruction, not the report.
This is the practical risk worth planning around: a report that is narrow rather than wrong, and narrow in a way that is difficult to detect from reading it.
What the Letter Should Actually Ask For
Four things, none of which follow automatically from a general instruction to value the cryptocurrency.
Wallet addresses, not only account names. Disclosure of “a Coinbase account” is not disclosure of an address. Addresses are what make on-chain analysis possible, and they should be sought explicitly, along with device-level detail: hardware wallets, seed phrase backups, wallet software installed on devices. Without addresses, the exercise is confined to whatever the exchanges confirm.
Both discovery and valuation. Where addresses are provided, activity on them sits on a public ledger, so interactions with DeFi protocols and transfers of NFTs generally surface as part of examining the address history whether or not the letter names them. Valuation is different. If nobody instructed the expert on how to value a liquidity pool position or an illiquid NFT, PD25B 4.1(e) means you may receive a report that identifies the asset and attaches no figure to it. Paragraph 4.1(f) requires the expert to flag a question falling outside their expertise and say whether a further expert is needed, which helps only if someone acts on the flag rather than filing it.
A valuation date and method. Volatility makes this consequential in a way it is not for a commercial property. Specify the date, and specify whether the figure is a spot price, an average, or something else, rather than leaving the expert to choose and the point to be argued at final hearing.
Tracing scope where there is a dishonesty concern. Identifying present holdings and tracing historic movements are different instructions with different costs. An expert asked only for the former will not reconstruct transfers to third parties or to addresses outside the disclosed set.
Because instructions are not privileged under FPR 25.14(3), a specific letter also has a secondary effect: the other side sees precisely what was asked, which makes a subsequent claim that the scope was understood differently harder to sustain.
Vetting the Expert
“Crypto expert” describes a wide range of actual capability, and a CV rarely distinguishes one from another.
Three questions separate them. Has this person traced blockchain transactions using forensic tooling, as opposed to reconciling exchange statements the parties supplied? Have they worked with self-custody wallets rather than only custodial holdings? Can they speak specifically to valuing DeFi positions and NFTs, if either sits in the pool?
The answers matter more than usual here because, under PD25B 4.1(e), an expert’s opinion is confined to their expertise. Instructing the wrong discipline does not produce an incorrect report. It produces a smaller one.
Our own forensic crypto expertise in family proceedings is built around that distinction.
Reading the Report, and the Ten-Day Window
Written questions under FPR 25.10 may be put once, within 10 days of service. In a familiar asset class, that is adequate. In an unfamiliar one it is tight, because it requires knowing what is absent from a document you are reading for the first time.
Three checks are worth running immediately on receipt:
- Does the report identify the addresses examined, or only the accounts? If addresses appear nowhere, self-custody was not in scope.
- Where a holding is identified, is a valuation method stated, or only a figure?
- Has the expert flagged anything as outside their expertise under PD25B 4.1(f)? That flag needs actioning inside the same 10 days, not at the FDR.
Where the report proves genuinely inadequate rather than merely unwelcome, the route to a further expert runs through the FPR 25.4(3) necessity test, and dissatisfaction with the outcome will not meet it. The stronger position is a letter of instruction that made the omission unlikely.
Working on a Case With Crypto in the Asset Pool?
If cryptocurrency forms part of the assets in a financial remedy matter you are handling, the scope of the instruction determines what the report can tell you, and it is fixed early. We combine in-house blockchain tracing with direct experience of the Single Joint Expert process in family proceedings, which means we can help scope the instruction before it is sent as well as answer it afterwards. Speak to our team about instructing an expert to discuss a case.
Read more in our series of guides on cryptocurrency and divorce:
Frequently Asked Questions
What should a letter of instruction ask for in a crypto case?
Wallet addresses rather than only account names, discovery and valuation as separate asks, a specified valuation date and method, and an explicit tracing scope where there is a dishonesty concern. A general instruction to identify and value the cryptocurrency will be answered by reference to whatever material the expert is given, which in practice means the disclosed exchange accounts.
Will a Single Joint Expert find self-custodied cryptocurrency?
Only if the instruction and the disclosed material give them somewhere to start. Self-custody produces no statements, so an expert working from documents has nothing pointing to it. Where wallet addresses are obtained, on-chain analysis becomes possible and holdings and movements can be examined directly.
When does a crypto case need blockchain tracing rather than conventional forensic analysis?
Wherever self-custody is a realistic possibility. Conventional analysis interrogates records, and self-custodied cryptocurrency generates none. The distinction is the evidence available rather than the competence of the discipline. Document analysis applied to an on-chain question reaches only as far as the documents go.
Does DeFi or NFT activity need naming in the letter of instruction?
For discovery, usually not, because activity on a disclosed address is visible on the same public ledger. For valuation, yes. Under PD25B 4.1(e) an expert confines their opinion to the questions asked, so an uninstructed valuation question can produce a report that identifies a liquidity pool position or an NFT without attaching a defensible figure to it.
What should I check on receiving a crypto expert’s report?
Whether addresses were examined or only accounts, whether valuation method is stated alongside each figure, and whether anything has been flagged as outside the expert’s expertise under PD25B 4.1(f). All three need addressing within the 10 days allowed for written questions under FPR 25.10.
Wealth Recovery Solicitors provides FPR Part 25 compliant forensic reports for Family Courts across England and Wales. If cryptocurrency features in a matter you are handling, get in touch for a confidential discussion.
This article is for general information only and does not constitute legal advice. The rules and practice directions cited should be checked against their current form before being relied on.
“The court doesn’t just need a list of assets; it needs to understand the evidence behind their value. I reconstruct that picture by examining the wallet, tracing its history, determining its value on the relevant date, and documenting precisely how that valuation was reached.”
Liam Ben Ari
Director of Digital Assets, Wealth Recovery Solicitors
The Report That Looks Complete
Consider an instruction to identify and value the respondent’s cryptocurrency holdings, with disclosure comprising statements from two exchanges.
An expert working from documents will do exactly that competently. The report will be properly formatted, will carry the statement of compliance required by FPR 25.14(2), and will present a figure. Nothing in it will appear deficient.
It will also be silent on anything self-custodied, because nothing in the material given to the expert points there. PD25B, paragraph 4.1(e), requires an expert to confine their opinion to matters material to the issues and to questions within their expertise. An expert who was handed exchange statements and asked for a valuation has answered the question put. The omission is in the instruction, not the report.
This is the practical risk worth planning around: a report that is narrow rather than wrong, and narrow in a way that is difficult to detect from reading it.
What the Letter Should Actually Ask For
Four things, none of which follow automatically from a general instruction to value the cryptocurrency.
Wallet addresses, not only account names. Disclosure of “a Coinbase account” is not disclosure of an address. Addresses are what make on-chain analysis possible, and they should be sought explicitly, along with device-level detail: hardware wallets, seed phrase backups, wallet software installed on devices. Without addresses, the exercise is confined to whatever the exchanges confirm.
Both discovery and valuation. Where addresses are provided, activity on them sits on a public ledger, so interactions with DeFi protocols and transfers of NFTs generally surface as part of examining the address history whether or not the letter names them. Valuation is different. If nobody instructed the expert on how to value a liquidity pool position or an illiquid NFT, PD25B 4.1(e) means you may receive a report that identifies the asset and attaches no figure to it. Paragraph 4.1(f) requires the expert to flag a question falling outside their expertise and say whether a further expert is needed, which helps only if someone acts on the flag rather than filing it.
A valuation date and method. Volatility makes this consequential in a way it is not for a commercial property. Specify the date, and specify whether the figure is a spot price, an average, or something else, rather than leaving the expert to choose and the point to be argued at final hearing.
Tracing scope where there is a dishonesty concern. Identifying present holdings and tracing historic movements are different instructions with different costs. An expert asked only for the former will not reconstruct transfers to third parties or to addresses outside the disclosed set.
Because instructions are not privileged under FPR 25.14(3), a specific letter also has a secondary effect: the other side sees precisely what was asked, which makes a subsequent claim that the scope was understood differently harder to sustain.
Vetting the Expert
“Crypto expert” describes a wide range of actual capability, and a CV rarely distinguishes one from another.
Three questions separate them. Has this person traced blockchain transactions using forensic tooling, as opposed to reconciling exchange statements the parties supplied? Have they worked with self-custody wallets rather than only custodial holdings? Can they speak specifically to valuing DeFi positions and NFTs, if either sits in the pool?
The answers matter more than usual here because, under PD25B 4.1(e), an expert’s opinion is confined to their expertise. Instructing the wrong discipline does not produce an incorrect report. It produces a smaller one.
Our own forensic crypto expertise in family proceedings is built around that distinction.
Reading the Report, and the Ten-Day Window
Written questions under FPR 25.10 may be put once, within 10 days of service. In a familiar asset class, that is adequate. In an unfamiliar one it is tight, because it requires knowing what is absent from a document you are reading for the first time.
Three checks are worth running immediately on receipt:
- Does the report identify the addresses examined, or only the accounts? If addresses appear nowhere, self-custody was not in scope.
- Where a holding is identified, is a valuation method stated, or only a figure?
- Has the expert flagged anything as outside their expertise under PD25B 4.1(f)? That flag needs actioning inside the same 10 days, not at the FDR.
Where the report proves genuinely inadequate rather than merely unwelcome, the route to a further expert runs through the FPR 25.4(3) necessity test, and dissatisfaction with the outcome will not meet it. The stronger position is a letter of instruction that made the omission unlikely.
Working on a Case With Crypto in the Asset Pool?
If cryptocurrency forms part of the assets in a financial remedy matter you are handling, the scope of the instruction determines what the report can tell you, and it is fixed early. We combine in-house blockchain tracing with direct experience of the Single Joint Expert process in family proceedings, which means we can help scope the instruction before it is sent as well as answer it afterwards. Speak to our team about instructing an expert to discuss a case.
Read more in our series of guides on cryptocurrency and divorce:
Frequently Asked Questions
What should a letter of instruction ask for in a crypto case?
Wallet addresses rather than only account names, discovery and valuation as separate asks, a specified valuation date and method, and an explicit tracing scope where there is a dishonesty concern. A general instruction to identify and value the cryptocurrency will be answered by reference to whatever material the expert is given, which in practice means the disclosed exchange accounts.
Will a Single Joint Expert find self-custodied cryptocurrency?
Only if the instruction and the disclosed material give them somewhere to start. Self-custody produces no statements, so an expert working from documents has nothing pointing to it. Where wallet addresses are obtained, on-chain analysis becomes possible and holdings and movements can be examined directly.
When does a crypto case need blockchain tracing rather than conventional forensic analysis?
Wherever self-custody is a realistic possibility. Conventional analysis interrogates records, and self-custodied cryptocurrency generates none. The distinction is the evidence available rather than the competence of the discipline. Document analysis applied to an on-chain question reaches only as far as the documents go.
Does DeFi or NFT activity need naming in the letter of instruction?
For discovery, usually not, because activity on a disclosed address is visible on the same public ledger. For valuation, yes. Under PD25B 4.1(e) an expert confines their opinion to the questions asked, so an uninstructed valuation question can produce a report that identifies a liquidity pool position or an NFT without attaching a defensible figure to it.
What should I check on receiving a crypto expert’s report?
Whether addresses were examined or only accounts, whether valuation method is stated alongside each figure, and whether anything has been flagged as outside the expert’s expertise under PD25B 4.1(f). All three need addressing within the 10 days allowed for written questions under FPR 25.10.
Wealth Recovery Solicitors provides FPR Part 25 compliant forensic reports for Family Courts across England and Wales. If cryptocurrency features in a matter you are handling, get in touch for a confidential discussion.
This article is for general information only and does not constitute legal advice. The rules and practice directions cited should be checked against their current form before being relied on.